Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restriction
This application contains claims directed to the following patentably distinct species
I. Figure 8 - A lidar sensor system with a transmitter with a corresponding first grating coupler, a receiver with a corresponding pair of grating couplers, and a mixer (for example, claims 1-17).
II. Figure 10 - A lidar sensor system with a multi-mode circulator (for example, claims 18-20).
The species are independent or distinct because the claims to the different species recite the mutually exclusive characteristics of such species (Species Group I Figure 8 recites A lidar sensor system with a transmitter with a corresponding first grating coupler, a receiver with a corresponding pair of grating couplers, and a mixer; Species Group II Figure 10 recites A lidar sensor system with a multi-mode circulator). In addition, these species are not obvious variants of each other based on the current record.
Applicant is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 to elect a single disclosed species, or a single grouping of patentably indistinct species, for prosecution on the merits to which the claims shall be restricted if no generic claim is finally held to be allowable. Currently, no claims are generic.
There is a serious search and/or examination burden for the patentably distinct species as set forth above because at least the following reason(s) apply:
- the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter; and/or
- the species or groupings of patentably indistinct species require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a species to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species, including any claims subsequently added. An argument that a claim is allowable or that all claims are generic is considered nonresponsive unless accompanied by an election.
The election may be made with or without traverse. To preserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the election of species requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable on the elected species or grouping of patentably indistinct species.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the species, or groupings of patentably indistinct species from which election is required, are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing them to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the species unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other species.
Upon the allowance of a generic claim, applicant will be entitled to consideration of claims to additional species which depend from or otherwise require all the limitations of an allowable generic claim as provided by 37 CFR 1.141.
During a telephone conversation with Jennifer Ulsh on 6/18/26 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Species Group I Figure 8, claims 1-17. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Figures 7A-7C and 8-9 should have durable and clean lines to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(l).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Going US20240410999.
Regarding independent claim 1, Going discloses, in Figures 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-11,
A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system (Going; Fig. 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-11; LiDAR system 100) for a vehicle (Going; [0017] vehicle), comprising:
a transmitter (Going; transmitter TX source 302) comprising a first grating coupler (Going; Fig. 5; [0052] I/O coupler 510 is a grating coupler), the transmitter configured to transmit an optical signal (Going; chirped laser 502 passes through I/O grating coupler 510 and collimating lens 512 towards a target/object);
a receiver (Going; the assembly of optical receivers 104; coupler 516, photodiodes 518, photodiodes 816/818, and photonic couplers 806/812) comprising a pair of grating couplers (Going; Fig. 8; photonic couplers 806/812) configured to receive a pair of returned optical signals (Going; Fig. 8; plurality of environmental/reflected/return signals 802; claim 6 “the plurality of return signals”) in response to transmitting the optical signal; and
a mixer (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner) configured to receive the pair of returned optical signals from the receiver, receive a local oscillator (LO) signal (Going; Fig. 8; LO signal 808) from a local oscillator (Going; local oscillator 508), mix the pair of returned optical signals with the LO signal, and output a plurality of mixed optical signals (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner; claim 15: “plurality of outputs provided to a plurality of quadrature photodetectors and a plurality of in-phase photodetectors”),
wherein two of the plurality of mixed optical signals have a relative phase difference of 90 degrees (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner; claim 15: 90-degree optical combiner).
Regarding claim 2, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the mixer is configured to simultaneously (1) mix the one of the pair of returned optical with the LO signal and (2) mix the other of the pair of returned optical with the LO signal (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner; claim 15: 90-degree optical combiner; claim 15: “plurality of outputs provided to a plurality of quadrature photodetectors and a plurality of in-phase photodetectors”; [0062-0063] “detection of in-phase and quadrature versions of the mixed signal” and “allows recovery of the full complex representation of the original optical signals”).
Regarding claim 3, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the mixer comprises a plurality of input ports, and the mixer is configured to receive the pair of returned optical signals and the LO signal at different ones of the plurality of input ports (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner).
Regarding claim 4, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the mixer comprises a plurality of output ports, and the mixer is configured to output the plurality of mixed optical signals at different ones of the plurality of output ports (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner).
Regarding claim 5, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1, further comprising an optical detector (Going; Fig. 8; photodiodes 816/818) configured to: detect the plurality of mixed optical signals to produce an in-phase (I) component and a quadrature (Q) component of an electrical signal (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner; claim 15: 90-degree optical combiner; claim 15: “plurality of outputs provided to a plurality of quadrature photodetectors and a plurality of in-phase photodetectors”; [0062-0063] “detection of in-phase and quadrature versions of the mixed signal” and “allows recovery of the full complex representation of the original optical signals”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Going in view of Michaels US20220075044.
Regarding claim 6, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1.
Going is silent regarding further comprising: a displacer configured to displace the pair of returned optical signals by a predetermined amount, wherein the pair of grating couplers are located such that the pair of grating couplers receive the pair of returned optical signal displaced by the displacer, respectively.
Michaels teaches a displacer configured to displace the pair of returned optical signals by a predetermined amount (Michaels; Fig. 2; [0051] “used in conjunction with a birefringent beam displacer to correct for beam walkoff” that cooperates with grating couplers 204/207).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Going to comprise a displacer as taught by Michaels for the purpose of providing a correctiong for beam walkoff (Michaels; Fig. 2; [0051] “used in conjunction with a birefringent beam displacer to correct for beam walkoff”).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Going in view of Madsen US5953467.
Regarding claim 7, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1, wherein the mixer is a 90 degree optical hybrid having input ports and output ports (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner).
Going is silent regarding wherein the mixer is having 4 input ports and 4 output ports.
Madsen teaches wherein the mixer is having 4 input ports and 4 output ports (Madsen; Fig. 7; col. 5:16-19 4x4 MMI coupler 70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mixer as taught by Going to comprise a 4x4 input/output port configuration as taught by Madsen for the purpose of providing additional ports for managing additional signals.
Regarding claim 8, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1.
Going is silent regarding wherein the mixer is a 4x4 multi-mode interference (MMI) structure.
Madsen teaches wherein the mixer is a 4x4 multi-mode interference (MMI) structure (Madsen; Fig. 7; col. 5:16-19 4x4 MMI coupler 70).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the mixer as taught by Going to comprise a 4x4 multi-mode interference (MMI) structure as taught by Madsen for the purpose of providing additional ports for managing additional signals.
Claim(s) 9-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Going US20240410999 in view of Dakin US20130166113.
Regarding claim 9, Going discloses The LIDAR system according to claim 1, further comprising one or more processors (Going; Fig. 11; computing device/processor 1100) configured to: generate a digital signal based on the plurality of mixed optical signals (Going; [0023] DSP); determine a Doppler frequency shift of the pair of returned optical signals based, at least in part, on the digital signal (Going; [0037] “The Doppler shift can be determined separately and used to correct the frequency of the return signal”).
Going is silent regarding operate the vehicle based on the Doppler frequency shift.
Dakin teaches operate the vehicle based on the Doppler frequency shift (Dakin; [0010] control a vehicle based on the Doppler shifts for the purpose of avoiding a collision; [0130] “the trajectory and/or altitude of the aircraft is automatically adjusted to avoid collision with the one or more objects... set the aircraft to automatically adjust its operation to avoid any objects that are detected within a threshold distance… Additionally, the speed and/or trajectory of the aircraft may be automatically adjusted to maintain a safe distance”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Going to comprise operating the vehicle based on the Doppler frequency shift as taught by Dakin for the purpose of avoiding a collision (Dakin; [0010] control a vehicle based on the Doppler shifts for the purpose of avoiding a collision; [0130] “the trajectory and/or altitude of the aircraft is automatically adjusted to avoid collision with the one or more objects... set the aircraft to automatically adjust its operation to avoid any objects that are detected within a threshold distance… Additionally, the speed and/or trajectory of the aircraft may be automatically adjusted to maintain a safe distance”).
Regarding independent claims 10 and 14, Going discloses, in Figures 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-11,
An system comprising:
one or more processors (Going; Fig. 11; computing device/processor 1100); and one or more computer-readable storage mediums storing instructions (Going; Fig. 11; CRM 1128 with instructions 1125) which, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
A light detection and ranging (LIDAR) sensor system (Going; Fig. 1-3, 5, 8, and 10-11; LiDAR system 100) for a vehicle (Going; [0017] vehicle), comprising:
a transmitter (Going; transmitter TX source 302) comprising a first grating coupler (Going; Fig. 5; [0052] I/O coupler 510 is a grating coupler), the transmitter configured to transmit an optical signal (Going; chirped laser 502 passes through I/O grating coupler 510 and collimating lens 512 towards a target/object);
a receiver (Going; the assembly of optical receivers 104; coupler 516, photodiodes 518, photodiodes 816/818, and photonic couplers 806/812) comprising a pair of grating couplers (Going; Fig. 8; photonic couplers 806/812) configured to receive a pair of returned optical signals (Going; Fig. 8; plurality of environmental/reflected/return signals 802; claim 6 “the plurality of return signals”) in response to transmitting the optical signal; and
a mixer (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner) configured to receive the pair of returned optical signals from the receiver, receive a local oscillator (LO) signal (Going; Fig. 8; LO signal 808) from a local oscillator (Going; local oscillator 508), mix the pair of returned optical signals with the LO signal, and output a plurality of mixed optical signals (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner; claim 15: “plurality of outputs provided to a plurality of quadrature photodetectors and a plurality of in-phase photodetectors”),
wherein two of the plurality of mixed optical signals have a relative phase difference of 90 degrees (Going; Fig. 8; [0063-0064] 90-degree optical hybrid mixer/combiner; claim 15: 90-degree optical combiner).
Going is silent regarding An autonomous vehicle control system, and control operation of a vehicle using the plurality of mixed optical signals; An autonomous vehicle comprising: at least one of a steering system or a braking system; and a vehicle controller; and control the at least one of the steering system or the braking system using the plurality of mixed optical signals.
Dakin teaches An autonomous vehicle control system, and control operation of a vehicle using the plurality of optical signals; An autonomous vehicle comprising: at least one of a steering system or a braking system; and a vehicle controller; and control the at least one of the steering system or the braking system using the plurality of signals (Dakin; abstract: “using LIDAR on an airborne vehicle”; [0007] “the airborne vehicle is controlled based on the distance to avoid colliding with the one or more objects”; [0038] autopilot program; [0010] “The LIDAR system further includes a controller configured to control the airborne vehicle based on the one or more Doppler shifts.”; [0130] “the trajectory and/or altitude of the aircraft is automatically adjusted to avoid collision with the one or more objects... set the aircraft to automatically adjust its operation to avoid any objects that are detected within a threshold distance… Additionally, the speed and/or trajectory of the aircraft may be automatically adjusted to maintain a safe distance”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the effective filing date of the invention to modify the LIDAR system as taught by Going to comprise an autonomous vehicle control system and controlling the vehicle steering based on the lidar signals and an autonomous vehicle and a steering system and a vehicle controller as taught by Dakin for the purpose of avoiding a collision (Dakin; abstract: “using LIDAR on an airborne vehicle”; [0007] “the airborne vehicle is controlled based on the distance to avoid colliding with the one or more objects”; [0038] autopilot program; [0010] “The LIDAR system further includes a controller configured to control the airborne vehicle based on the one or more Doppler shifts.”; [0130] “the trajectory and/or altitude of the aircraft is automatically adjusted to avoid collision with the one or more objects... set the aircraft to automatically adjust its operation to avoid any objects that are detected within a threshold distance… Additionally, the speed and/or trajectory of the aircraft may be automatically adjusted to maintain a safe distance”).
Regarding claim 11, Modified Going teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 12, Modified Going teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 3.
Regarding claim 13, Modified Going teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Modified Going teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 2.
Regarding claim 16, Modified Going teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 3.
Regarding claim 17, Modified Going teaches the invention substantially the same as described above in reference to claim 4.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Michaels US20240053482 teaches a lidar system with grating couplers and a circulator.
Michaels US11789156 teaches a lidar system with grating couplers and a circulator.
Grudinin US20230393281 teaches an optical phase shift of pi/2 radians which is equivalent to a 90-degree phase shift/difference/offset.
Angus US20240111053 teaches a lidar system with grating couplers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN MALIKASIM whose telephone number is (313)446-6597. The examiner can normally be reached M-F; 8 am - 5 pm (CST).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Yuqing Xiao can be reached at 571-270-3603. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JONATHAN MALIKASIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3645 6/22/26
Prosecution Insights